Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of his homelessness application because the Council have already agreed to review his application which is a suitable remedy. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Council failing to prevent his eviction or to provide enough support because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not prevent his eviction from his previous property and that he did not receive enough support from the housing officer who was unprofessional. Mr X says the Council assessed him as not having priority need as it did not properly consider his medical needs, and this led to him not receiving alternative housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council did not prevent his eviction from his previous home. However, the Council had no knowledge of the situation until Mr X made a homelessness application after his eviction. The Council was therefore unable to prevent his eviction and there is no evidence of fault. I will not investigate this part of the complaint.
7. Mr X complains the housing officer did not give him enough support and was unprofessional. The Council’s complaint investigation found Mr X received regular contact and advice from the housing officer and found no evidence the officer was unprofessional. There is not enough evidence of fault and I could not add to the previous investigation by the Council so I will not investigate this complaint.
8. Mr X asked the Council to complete a review of its decision to end its relief duty due to him not being in priority need. The Council failed to complete this review. If we were to investigate, it is likely we would find the Council at fault for this. I am satisfied the fault will have caused Mr X frustration.
9. We therefore asked the Council to remedy this by completing the following:
• Apologise to Mr X for failing to complete the review of its decision.
• Complete a review of its decision to end the relief duty due to Mr X not being in priority need.

Back to top

Agreed action

10. The Council agreed to complete the above within 21 days of the date of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the likely fault. In addition, we will not investigate the other elements of Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to merit investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman